Go to page

Go to page

Go to page

"The route was affected by the start of hostilities between Japan and the US in December 1941, but was not interrupted as Japan and the Soviet Union maintained a strict neutrality towards each other for the duration of the conflict, changing only in August 1945. Due to this neutrality the goods could be moved only in Soviet-flagged ships, and, as they were inspected by the Japanese, could not include war materials. The route was therefore used to transport foods, raw materials and non-military goods such as lorries and other road vehicles, railway locomotives and rolling stock. It was also the most practical route for goods and materials produced in the US western states. During the conflict the Pacific Route saw a steady stream of goods moved from the west coast of the United States and overall accounted for some 50% of all Lend-lease goods to the Soviet Union"Pacific Route - Wikipedia

50% of all goods. I'd question that that Murmusks,, Persian corridor were more important. Though reading this I did not know that the Japanese inspected goods and it was restricted to "civikain goods". Trucks seem pretty military,

I not saying the lend lease was decisive, but it was significant. And Japanese belligerence would have reduced tis pretty significnatly. Though The Soviets coudl have been diffacult in the far east., not saying that Japanses miliatry opertaions against the Soviets were going to easy or sucessful.

Just raisng this as a factor/issue to be considered as well as direct military operations.

Sure, but we should contextualize this. The Lend Lease brought in through Vladivostok were a long term gain. All those supplies had to be funneled through Siberia. Where as the Persian Corridor/Volga, Murmansk and Archangelsk provided the materials immediately to all the main areas. So it was the most crucial networks given the dire circumstances.

I never specified that only DAK from Libya eastward mattered. German expeditionary forces as a whole needed supplies this is what I was originally responding to:

"Are you saying that germany had enough oil to launch multiple large scale offensives at once after 1942 and put up roughly the same amount of aircraft as their enemies?

It was win or loose the entire thing in case blue.

The africa corps only had two panzer divisons."

The DAK was only one of numerous German units operating in North Africa. Besides the later Fifth Panzer Army there were also substantial Luftwaffe forces too. All needed fuel and other supplies that were diverted away from other theaters that could have used them. Which is why North Africa was a costly side show, there was no strategic benefit from being there besides supporting Italy and preventing it from being embarrassed, but Rommel went far far beyond that when he took the war to the British, and then paid for it by total defeat.

Beg to disagree, holding North Africa secured all Southern Europe from assault (south France, Italy and Greece).
The other fact is that we are talking about a two year period between the arrival of the first Germans - March 1941 - and the defeat in Tunisia - May 1943.

In this period the Italian merchant fleet was sunk by RAF based in Malta. After winning Crete Germany should have occupied Malta, defenses were lighter then in Crete, the geography is completely different but the losses on German Fallchirmjaeger scared Hitler. A fact is that Malta occupied luftwaffe resources and allowed and a conquest of Egypt would deny also Alexandria, making the Mediterranean a new “mare nostrum”.

Besides, the political impact on British colonies being lost to the Germans like the Middle East countries or India would deny several resources to the allies.

In this period the Italian merchant fleet was sunk by RAF based in Malta. After winning Crete Germany should have occupied Malta, defenses were lighter then in Crete, the geography is completely different but the losses on German Fallchirmjaeger scared Hitler. A fact is that Malta occupied luftwaffe resources and allowed and a conquest of Egypt would deny also Alexandria, making the Mediterranean a new “mare nostrum”.
s.

The defences in Matla were much dener, a smaller area defended by a porprtionally larger force, Crete showned that paratroopers drooped into a contexted situation were slaughtered. There was no whewre at all to drop paratroop[ers or land gliders that would not be contested on Malta. The Fallchirmjaeger had suffered massive clasualties in Crete, they were not in good shape. Malta was a lot pretty rocky areasthat were nt goinfg to be soft landings. Malta had Radar and a defence not heavily disorganized by defeat and hadly evacuation to crete which meantteh dfeneding forces were very hidge podge in Crete. The British were reading everything fom the Luftwaffe signals. They would have the complete plan of attack on Malta.

It;s doubtful the Fallchirmjaeger would suceed. They were just lucky in Crete.

Sure, but we should contextualize this. The Lend Lease brought in through Vladivostok were a long term gain. All those supplies had to be funneled through Siberia. Where as the Persian Corridor/Volga, Murmansk and Archangelsk provided the materials immediately to all the main areas. So it was the most crucial networks given the dire circumstances.

The defences in Matla were much dener, a smaller area defended by a porprtionally larger force, Crete showned that paratroopers drooped into a contexted situation were slaughtered. There was no whewre at all to drop paratroop[ers or land gliders that would not be contested on Malta. The Fallchirmjaeger had suffered massive clasualties in Crete, they were not in good shape. Malta was a lot pretty rocky areasthat were nt goinfg to be soft landings. Malta had Radar and a defence not heavily disorganized by defeat and hadly evacuation to crete which meantteh dfeneding forces were very hidge podge in Crete. The British were reading everything fom the Luftwaffe signals. They would have the complete plan of attack on Malta.

It;s doubtful the Fallchirmjaeger would suceed. They were just lucky in Crete.

Have you visited both the islands?
Forces in Malta never reached the level of Crete, you just look at the areas of both of them.

I didn’t say the best way to reach Malta was by air, there are lots of sand beaches and costal defenses were scarce, even Corregidor was captured so If it was decided it would have happened. Germans, however, thought that the air battle would be enough to control the island but they butchered all supplies to North Africa.

Peak of axis possession in NA was Líbia up to El Alamein. The only concern should coastal Marrocos and the garrison the major cities in Algiers, Tuniisia, Líbia, Egypt up to Turkey. Besides the Atlas, from Algiers to Egipt the south is void, there is no safer defense then the Sahara, the only threats would come from LRDG sort of strikes as no major offensive is possible. The low density of the population was another good reason why defense was not as demanding.

The fact is that Libyan oil could have explored by the aixes and a push through the Middle East would be less costly then the Barbarossa. Germany had peace with Russian to moving to the east instead of the south proved wrong.

Lots, of snady beaches. NO there are not. There are virtually no sand beaches on Malta. Those few sandy beaches are overlooked by cliffs. Almost all of the Maltase coastline is vertical cliffs. Go google streetview and have a look. it's small Island.

The Italains had no landing craft. They had a few pretty primitaive landing ships. the Defences were scare in the early war but the resources available to the attackers were equally scare and primitive.

Italian intelligence had greatly over estimated the defenses, and they decided that it could not be feasbility attacked.

IPerhaops I was not clear proportionally the amount of defenders per square mile was much larger at Malta. It's a very small island. Cerete a relatively larege one.

Lots, of snady beaches. NO there are not. There are virtually no sand beaches on Malta. Those few sandy beaches are overlooked by cliffs. Almost all of the Maltase coastline is vertical cliffs. Go google streetview and have a look. it's small Island.

The Italains had no landing craft. They had a few pretty primitaive landing ships. the Defences were scare in the early war but the resources available to the attackers were equally scare and primitive.

Italian intelligence had greatly over estimated the defenses, and they decided that it could not be feasbility attacked.

Cliffs??? I don’t need to street view it, I have been there. The north area close to Gozo isl. is a good landing spot, the density of troops per sq mile only make sense targets for air raids. The highest point in Malta is roughly 250 mts whilst Crete has several mountains over the 1500 mts, with the heighest well above the 2000.

True for the lack of amphibious resources from the axis but the coast of Malta was not festung europa, defenses In 1941 were crap, the only air support were some gladiators and one infantry division. Without the air cover, it was a very feasible target.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.